Significant association with location of central venous line placement and risk of venous thrombosis in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in children are frequently associated with central venous lines (CVL). Identifying risk factors related to CVL management could potentially minimize CVL-related thrombotic complications. The objectives of the study were to assess whether CVL location, type, size, and duration of placement are associated with the incidence of VTE in children. The study was a prospective, multicentre cohort study in a general pediatric population requiring CVL. Data on CVL characteristics were documented prospectively using standardized case report forms. Outcome assessments were by i) clinical monitoring for symptomatic VTE which were confirmed by appropriate objective test, or ii) screening by venography at study exit. Among 158 children, 21 (13%) hadVTE. The incidence of VTE was increased with femoral CVL (32%) and subclavian CVL (27%) compared to brachial CVL (12%) and jugular CVL (8%; p = 0.01). The incidence of VTE was independent of CVL type (peripherally inserted central catheters, untunneled CVL, tunneled exteriorized CVL, subcutaneous ports; p = 0.90), and CVL size (CVL diameter, p = 0.42; number of CVL lumen, p = 0.58). The incidence of VTE did not increase with duration of CVL placement: 0-5 days (17% VTE), 6-20 days (19%), 21-35 days (10%), and 36-50 days (11%, p = 0.68). The incidence of CVL-relatedVTE may be reduced by preferred placement of CVL in brachial or jugular veins. The choice of CVL type and size does not significantly influence the risk of VTE. Short-term CVL are associated with a similar risk of VTE as longer-term CVL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".